| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jack" |
| Date: |
23 May 2006 07:43:15 AM |
| Object: |
Making God Impossible by Definition |
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different definitions
and interpretations depending on the person using them. We have all seen
people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The ability of God to do
anything, even the logically impossible", constructing an argument based
on this definition and using the resulting contradiction(s) to conclude
the non-existence of an Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Of course, if you start with a logical impossibility, you are bound to
land at a contradiction.
Now, whether God is able to bend and break logic according to His will
is not the point. The point is that such a statement IS illogical. If we
leave the world of logic behind in making asserting such a statement we
cannot justify any further use of logic.
If a hard-line believer maintains that an Omnipotent being is able to do
the logically impossible then they have, in saying this, left the realms
of Logic and uttered an illogical and contradictory statement: "The
impossible is possible".
I would argue that an Omnipotent (all powerful) being is one which is
able to do all that which is possible, because that which is impossible
does not exist (except as a concept) and cannot be done. This is not a
limitation on the power but a logical necessity if the concept is to be
accepted by rational beings.
Thus, by defining Omnipotence in an illogical way, we have made an
Omnipotent Being impossible by definition and not by logic.
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 06:58:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 11:33:33 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ttiv92947a8r6pktgruimrf54odk1uqhb4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything is
in trouble.
Any question on this point, or do you want to just stick to assuming your
conclusions and arguing ad hominem against anyone who does not fall for your
sophistry?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Schaffner" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 12:10:36 PM |
|
|
"Sheikh Yapeter" <sy@comcast.com> writes:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ttiv92947a8r6pktgruimrf54odk1uqhb4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything is
in trouble.
Any question on this point, or do you want to just stick to assuming your
conclusions and arguing ad hominem against anyone who does not fall for your
sophistry?
Oh, I'm not arguing anything, and have no interest in whatever
argument it is you're offering. I just find the sight of you trying
to teach philosophy to John amusing. I particularly like your
justification for concluding that John is a theist, which seems
to have two parts: he disagrees with you, and he say isn't a theist.
Hard to argue with, I will admit.
--
Steve Schaffner
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 12:30:01 PM |
|
|
On 26 Jun 2006 13:10:36 -0400, Steve Schaffner
<sfs@phosphorus.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is Shake Ya Peter yet another of septic's nyms?
in trouble.
Any question on this point, or do you want to just stick to assuming your
conclusions and arguing ad hominem against anyone who does not fall for your
sophistry?
Oh, I'm not arguing anything, and have no interest in whatever
argument it is you're offering. I just find the sight of you trying
to teach philosophy to John amusing. I particularly like your
justification for concluding that John is a theist, which seems
to have two parts: he disagrees with you, and he say isn't a theist.
Hard to argue with, I will admit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 12:49:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:33:33 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <NtmdnZls98TikT3ZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ttiv92947a8r6pktgruimrf54odk1uqhb4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything is
in trouble.
Please note the ad hominem in the above and the comment below.
Any question on this point, or do you want to just stick to assuming your
conclusions and arguing ad hominem against anyone who does not fall for your
sophistry?
No, go after John, that will be much more fun. Teach him about logic,
not me.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 06:45:36 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:33:33 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <NtmdnZls98TikT3ZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ttiv92947a8r6pktgruimrf54odk1uqhb4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything is
in trouble.
Please note the ad hominem in the above and the comment below.
Any question on this point, or do you want to just stick to assuming your
conclusions and arguing ad hominem against anyone who does not fall for your
sophistry?
No, go after John, that will be much more fun. Teach him about logic,
not me.
This guy is so silly, it's not worth the effort. And it's critical
reasoning that is at issue here, not logic per se. He has one note, an
invented fallacy, on which he bases all his arguments. He attacks
strawmen, he uses ad hominem, he argues using invented terminology and
refuses to sunstantively reply to any criticisms. It ain't worth the
time...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 08:41:25 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhl2g0.1rz2phbl72b2oN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
This guy is so silly ...
Translation: "I don't have any reasonable response to the principles of
valid argument that he points out, so I will now try to get away with the
logical fallacy of argument _ad hominem_."
Are you really going to tell the world that John Wilkins does not understand
that ad hoc rescue is logical fallacy, a form of special pleading?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 09:39:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:45:36 +1000, in talk.origins ,
j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) in
<1hhl2g0.1rz2phbl72b2oN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
No, go after John, that will be much more fun. Teach him about logic,
not me.
This guy is so silly, it's not worth the effort. And it's critical
reasoning that is at issue here, not logic per se. He has one note, an
invented fallacy, on which he bases all his arguments. He attacks
strawmen, he uses ad hominem, he argues using invented terminology and
refuses to sunstantively reply to any criticisms. It ain't worth the
time...
As the great John L. Sullivan was reputed to have said to a man in a
bar: "If you ever hit me, and I find out about it, ..."
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wade" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 12:56:40 PM |
|
|
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ttiv92947a8r6pktgruimrf54odk1uqhb4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything is
in trouble.
There's a pretty solid track record going back 15+ years that a few
of those aren't theists and are rather antagonistic to many claims
of proof for the existence of particular Gods.
So perhaps it's time for somebody to take a step back and read what
is actually being written instead of reading in their standard strawman
thoughts about what those silly theists think.
Any question on this point, or do you want to just stick to assuming your
conclusions and arguing ad hominem against anyone who does not fall for your
sophistry?
A mirror might prove helpful at this point.
While there indeed are groups so utterly lacking in sophistication that
they probably can't even understand the "can god make a rock so heavy
he can't lift it" paradox. But it seems that such groups exist on
both extremes of the theist/atheist divide.
One such group, claiming ultimate victory has some comedic
value but at some point, it's disheartening. That point has past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 03:42:54 PM |
|
|
"wade" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1151344600.866512.268360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ttiv92947a8r6pktgruimrf54odk1uqhb4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get
away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you
are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new
assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished
belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a
cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up
on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything
is
in trouble.
There's a pretty solid track record going back 15+ years that a few
of those aren't theists ...
Anybody can claim to be or not be anything at all in Usenet. There is no way
to know for sure because we have no way to check credentials. So we must
limit our discussion to what is said, and all I am saying is that I take
exception to Dannii's argument, the attempted ad hoc rescue Dannii and
friends are trying to get away with here, that the hypothetical God is not
part of the web of relationships between all things (the universe).
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything is
in trouble.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
While there indeed are groups so utterly lacking in sophistication that
they probably can't even understand the "can god make a rock so heavy
he can't lift it" paradox. But it seems that such groups exist on
both extremes of the theist/atheist divide.
One such group, claiming ultimate victory has some comedic
value but at some point, it's disheartening. That point has past.
So the bottom line as you see it at this point is that we have no choice but
to agree that might be a Creator because the atheists have not proven that
hypothesis false?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 04:11:43 PM |
|
|
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"wade" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1151344600.866512.268360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ttiv92947a8r6pktgruimrf54odk1uqhb4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get
away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you
are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new
assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished
belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a
cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up
on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything
is
in trouble.
There's a pretty solid track record going back 15+ years that a few
of those aren't theists ...
Anybody can claim to be or not be anything at all in Usenet. There is no way
to know for sure because we have no way to check credentials. So we must
limit our discussion to what is said, and all I am saying is that I take
exception to Dannii's argument, the attempted ad hoc rescue Dannii and
friends are trying to get away with here, that the hypothetical God is not
part of the web of relationships between all things (the universe).
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything is
in trouble.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
While there indeed are groups so utterly lacking in sophistication that
they probably can't even understand the "can god make a rock so heavy
he can't lift it" paradox. But it seems that such groups exist on
both extremes of the theist/atheist divide.
One such group, claiming ultimate victory has some comedic
value but at some point, it's disheartening. That point has past.
So the bottom line as you see it at this point is that we have no choice but
to agree that might be a Creator because the atheists have not proven that
hypothesis false?
Sure. Then it's up to the theists to prove there IS a creator; THAT'S
the theist claim, not "there might be a creator." Then, when they fail
to prove their claim, atheists say, "There's still no legitimate reason
to believe you. Too bad."
Of course, you will never, ever see the difference between admitting
the possibility of something and claiming the certainty of something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 08:34:16 PM |
|
|
"JessHC" <jesshc@ad.funnel.revenuedirect.com.akadns.net> wrote in message
news:1151356303.114828.61490@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"wade" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1151344600.866512.268360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:ttiv92947a8r6pktgruimrf54odk1uqhb4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:49:29 -0700, in talk.origins , "Sheikh
Yapeter"
<sy@comcast.com> in <Y7idnTHtNeo_HgLZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hhja1t.1xwqxdu1njkk3rN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au
"Ad hoc" means "to this", which is to say, done on the fly.
The fallacy of ad hoc rescue, which you and Dannii are trying to get
away
with, is described as follows:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you
are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new
assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept
this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished
belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day,
you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a
cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
Hey, guys, he's teaching John logic. Let's watch.
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone
up
on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their
cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created
everything
is
in trouble.
There's a pretty solid track record going back 15+ years that a few
of those aren't theists ...
Anybody can claim to be or not be anything at all in Usenet. There is no
way
to know for sure because we have no way to check credentials. So we must
limit our discussion to what is said, and all I am saying is that I take
exception to Dannii's argument, the attempted ad hoc rescue Dannii and
friends are trying to get away with here, that the hypothetical God is
not
part of the web of relationships between all things (the universe).
Evidently Matt and Steve and Wade and Dannii and John all need to bone up
on
the logical fallacy of attempting an ad hoc rescue when their cherished
belief that there might be a magic invisible God who created everything
is
in trouble.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption
is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you
will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
While there indeed are groups so utterly lacking in sophistication that
they probably can't even understand the "can god make a rock so heavy
he can't lift it" paradox. But it seems that such groups exist on
both extremes of the theist/atheist divide.
One such group, claiming ultimate victory has some comedic
value but at some point, it's disheartening. That point has past.
So the bottom line as you see it at this point is that we have no choice
but
to agree that might be a Creator because the atheists have not proven
that
hypothesis false?
Sure. Then it's up to the theists to prove there IS a creator; THAT'S
the theist claim, not "there might be a creator."
Dannii and John friends are claiming that the there might be a creator is
plausible, that there might actually be such a thing because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
See, here is where Dannii trys to get away with shifting the burden of proof
to the non-believers:
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151321704.143756.136140@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
... If the idea is
shown to be inplausible [sic], then there's no need to discuss whether
it's
true, but if it is plausible, then you can discuss whether it is true
or not later.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dannii" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 10:54:03 PM |
|
|
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
Dannii and John friends are claiming that the there might be a creator is
plausible, that there might actually be such a thing because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
See, here is where Dannii trys to get away with shifting the burden of proof
to the non-believers:
I'm not shifting the burden of proof to anyone else, but instead saying
that an argument about the existence of god can have two parts, firstly
whether a god is plausible, and secondly whether a god actually exists.
If a god's existence is not plausible, then arguments about whether a
god exists or not are irrelevant. This topic is trying to argue that a
god is inplausible because of omni* paradoxes, but I think that
argument fails. From what I've read, the only people still pushing the
omni* paradox argument are now arguing about language technicalities,
quite silly really.
So tell me where I've tried to shift the burden of proof, and what
about. I haven't argued the second stage (about the actual existence of
a god) anywhere, and I haven't tried to tell anyone else to argue it
either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 12:10:44 PM |
|
|
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151380443.712511.316010@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
So tell me where I've tried to shift the burden of proof
I did. You snipped it.
[unsnip]
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151321704.143756.136140@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
... If the idea is
shown to be inplausible [sic],
then there's no need to discuss whether
it's true, but if it is plausible,
then you can discuss whether it is true
or not later.
Dannii, you seem to be a little confused. Let me see if I can help clear up
a couple of things for you.
For one thing, the term, 'plausible' means apparently reasonable and valid
AND TRUTHFUL.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So there aren't any "two parts" to this at all, there is only one, YOUR side
has to show YOUR notion is plausible. Period.
For another thing, we non-believers have nothing to "show" (read prove)
because the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the negative as you are
trying to do. We non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove in this
case, only you do, that your notion is plausible (reasonable and valid and
truthful).
So your idea that there are somehow "two parts" to this discussion is
nonsense.
Also you need to face the fact that you will NEVER be able to establish that
the notion there might be an omnipotent (almighty, ALL powerful) entity is
plausible (reasonable and valid and truthful), because that notion suffers
from an inherent logical contradiction, as Don Kresh has pointed out above
in this thread, in that having the power to create the universe is logically
impossible. Existence would precede existence. You would have A and not-A at
the same time, which can't be. So the notion is summarily rejected due to
the logical contradiction inherent in it.
Any questions, old son?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wade" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 12:32:28 PM |
|
|
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151321704.143756.136140@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
... If the idea is
shown to be inplausible [sic],
then there's no need to discuss whether
it's true, but if it is plausible,
then you can discuss whether it is true
or not later.
Dannii, you seem to be a little confused. Let me see if I can help clear up
a couple of things for you.
For one thing, the term, 'plausible' means apparently reasonable and valid
AND TRUTHFUL.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I wonder if you've consulted other online dictionaries. Let's assume
you haven't and English is a second or third language for you.
The meaning of "plausible" can vary considerably but a reasonably
intelligent reader would recognize the usage as "within the realm of
possibility" perhaps skewed toward the probable side of merely
possible. It's a sliding scale sort of word. Unless of course the
author was making a game of you as the word plausible has also
been defined to mean specious. But perhaps the subtlties of
words that can have nearly opposite meanings might not fit
with your level of philosophical post modernism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 03:26:12 PM |
|
|
"wade" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1151429548.089161.111240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151321704.143756.136140@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
... If the idea is
shown to be inplausible [sic],
then there's no need to discuss whether
it's true, but if it is plausible,
then you can discuss whether it is true
or not later.
Dannii, you seem to be a little confused. Let me see if I can help clear
up
a couple of things for you.
For one thing, the term, 'plausible' means apparently reasonable and
valid
AND TRUTHFUL.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I wonder if you've consulted other online dictionaries.
What's wrong with Princeton? They have a pretty good reputation, don't they?
Is there something specific to which you have sound reason to take exception
in this, or are are you just trying to get away with another lame ad hoc
rescue?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wade" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 03:43:27 PM |
|
|
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"wade" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1151429548.089161.111240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151321704.143756.136140@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
... If the idea is
shown to be inplausible [sic],
then there's no need to discuss whether
it's true, but if it is plausible,
then you can discuss whether it is true
or not later.
Dannii, you seem to be a little confused. Let me see if I can help clear
up
a couple of things for you.
For one thing, the term, 'plausible' means apparently reasonable and
valid
AND TRUTHFUL.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I wonder if you've consulted other online dictionaries.
What's wrong with Princeton? They have a pretty good reputation, don't they?
Is there something specific to which you have sound reason to take exception
in this, or are are you just trying to get away with another lame ad hoc
rescue?
I note you deleted the answer to your question in order to repost
this spam you keep regurgitating in place of an actual congnate
and responsive argument.
Repeating, your definition includes "And truthful" which is a meaning
not generally included with the definition of plausible. In fact,
"plausible"
has an alternative meaning of specious which is in fact an antonym
to more common meanings.
This is therefore a good example of why your argumentum ad
dictionary is a sad cariacature of logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
28 Jun 2006 12:37:35 AM |
|
|
"wade" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1151441007.806282.274200@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"wade" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1151429548.089161.111240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151321704.143756.136140@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
... If the idea is
shown to be inplausible [sic],
then there's no need to discuss whether
it's true, but if it is plausible,
then you can discuss whether it is true
or not later.
Dannii, you seem to be a little confused. Let me see if I can help
clear
up
a couple of things for you.
For one thing, the term, 'plausible' means apparently reasonable and
valid
AND TRUTHFUL.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I wonder if you've consulted other online dictionaries.
What's wrong with Princeton? They have a pretty good reputation, don't
they?
Is there something specific to which you have sound reason to take
exception
in this, or are are you just trying to get away with another lame ad hoc
rescue?
... Your definition
Not mine. I can't take credit for it. The credit goes to Princeton, a pretty
reliable source, don't you agree?
includes "And truthful"
What's wrong with that? If a statement is not apparently reasonable and
valid and truthful (in accord with the actual state of affairs), why should
anyone agree that it is a plausible statement?
Come on now, fess up, isn't it true that you are just trying to get away
with another lame ad hoc rescue here, Wad?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a
cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are
likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is
taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this
saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief,
your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you will
never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
[unsnip]
For another thing, we non-believers have nothing to "show" (read prove)
because the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the negative as you are
trying to do. We non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove in this
case, only you do, that your notion is plausible (reasonable and valid and
truthful).
So your idea that there are somehow "two parts" to this discussion is
nonsense.
Also you need to face the fact that you will NEVER be able to establish that
the notion there might be an omnipotent (almighty, ALL powerful) entity is
plausible (reasonable and valid and truthful), because that notion suffers
from an inherent logical contradiction, as Don Kresh has pointed out above
in this thread, in that having the power to create the universe is logically
impossible. Existence would precede existence. You would have A and not-A at
the same time, which can't be. So the notion is summarily rejected due to
the logical contradiction inherent in it.
Any questions, old son?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dannii" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 Jun 2006 11:32:02 PM |
|
|
Oh, and just because the omni* paradox argument fails, does not prove a
god's existence is plausible. Anyone is free to bring up more arguments
that go either way. Don't think I'm saying that the plausibility of a
god has been proved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 03:17:10 AM |
|
|
On 26 Jun 2006 21:32:02 -0700, "Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com>
wrote:
Oh, and just because the omni* paradox argument fails, does not prove a
god's existence is plausible. Anyone is free to bring up more arguments
that go either way. Don't think I'm saying that the plausibility of a
god has been proved.
Except of course that it doesn't fail - otherwise why would theists be
in denial about having redefined the omni- prefix from "everything" to
"not-quite-everything" to resolve the problems?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 12:59:24 AM |
|
|
On 26 Jun 2006 20:54:03 -0700, "Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1151380443.712511.316010@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
Dannii and John friends are claiming that the there might be a creator is
plausible, that there might actually be such a thing because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
See, here is where Dannii trys to get away with shifting the burden of proof
to the non-believers:
I'm not shifting the burden of proof to anyone else, but instead saying
that an argument about the existence of god can have two parts, firstly
whether a god is plausible, and secondly whether a god actually exists.
:
You missed the vital first step:
To define what you mean by "GOD".
I shall leave the question as to why you curiously choose to refer to
"it" in the singular to after the essential provision of the
definition of what-the-*****-it-is you are talking about.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dannii" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 01:57:51 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
You missed the vital first step:
To define what you mean by "GOD".
I shall leave the question as to why you curiously choose to refer to
"it" in the singular to after the essential provision of the
definition of what-the-*****-it-is you are talking about.
Of course such things must be defined first. But seeing as everyone is
already discussing the existence of a god, then isn't it safe to
presume they have already defined 'god' before?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Siemon" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 02:05:56 AM |
|
|
In article <1151391471.180219.120890@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
You missed the vital first step:
To define what you mean by "GOD".
I shall leave the question as to why you curiously choose to refer to
"it" in the singular to after the essential provision of the
definition of what-the-*****-it-is you are talking about.
Of course such things must be defined first. But seeing as everyone is
already discussing the existence of a god, then isn't it safe to
presume they have already defined 'god' before?
No, that would not be "safe". Was that a rhetorical question?
if so, the rhetorical intent is unclear :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dannii" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 02:13:25 AM |
|
|
Michael Siemon wrote:
In article <1151391471.180219.120890@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
You missed the vital first step:
To define what you mean by "GOD".
I shall leave the question as to why you curiously choose to refer to
"it" in the singular to after the essential provision of the
definition of what-the-*****-it-is you are talking about.
Of course such things must be defined first. But seeing as everyone is
already discussing the existence of a god, then isn't it safe to
presume they have already defined 'god' before?
No, that would not be "safe". Was that a rhetorical question?
if so, the rhetorical intent is unclear :-)
Well I've entered this argument towards the end, so if no one defined
'god' first, then it's not got anything to do with me. But no one
seemed to be arguing about the definition of 'god' (except one brief
thing about 'god' being or not being 'special') so presumably no one
else minds about missing that first step.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 11:39:15 AM |
|
|
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151392405.411019.98980@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Michael Siemon wrote:
In article <1151391471.180219.120890@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
You missed the vital first step:
To define what you mean by "GOD".
I shall leave the question as to why you curiously choose to refer to
"it" in the singular to after the essential provision of the
definition of what-the-*****-it-is you are talking about.
Of course such things must be defined first. But seeing as everyone is
already discussing the existence of a god, then isn't it safe to
presume they have already defined 'god' before?
No, that would not be "safe". Was that a rhetorical question?
if so, the rhetorical intent is unclear :-)
Well I've entered this argument towards the end, so if no one defined
'god' first, then it's not got anything to do with me. But no one
seemed to be arguing about the definition of 'god' (except one brief
thing about 'god' being or not being 'special')
The issue raised (that you still have not responded to in any satisfactory
way) is your special pleading that "Everything must have a cause, except
God, who is a special entity, the First Cause." Special pleading like that
is logical fallacy, so your notion that there might be a creator is
summarily rejected due to the logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in
it.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Special_Pleading
Are you saying that I am the first person to ever inform you of this logical
fallacy, son? Maybe I will be the 'first cause' of you transitioning to
atheism? 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dannii" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 Jun 2006 10:27:57 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
No. We use the original meaning - not the theist's redefinition to
fit, which they seem to imagine everybody else should use as well even
outside the theist's religion.
The omni-" prefix means "all" or "everything". Not "almost
everything".
Why do you keep ignoring that?
We 're twisting nothing.
I would think that the first people to discuss a god's power and
abilties/limitations would also have been theist's. So for us to be
redefining anything you'd have to show that these ancient theists,
prehaps some first and second century Christians for example, believed
that their God's omnipotence allowed him to do the logically
impossible. Can you show this? A simple quote will suffice.
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
The issue raised (that you still have not responded to in any satisfactory
way) is your special pleading that "Everything must have a cause, except
God, who is a special entity, the First Cause." Special pleading like that
is logical fallacy, so your notion that there might be a creator is
summarily rejected due to the logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in
it.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Special_Pleading
Are you saying that I am the first person to ever inform you of this logical
fallacy, son? Maybe I will be the 'first cause' of you transitioning to
atheism? 8^)
Um, nowhere did I say anything anywhere about causality. But if I had,
I would have said "Everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
Because God has no beginning, he does not need a cause."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
28 Jun 2006 02:10:22 AM |
|
|
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151465276.991467.253490@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
No. We use the original meaning - not the theist's redefinition to
fit, which they seem to imagine everybody else should use as well even
outside the theist's religion.
The omni-" prefix means "all" or "everything". Not "almost
everything".
Why do you keep ignoring that?
We 're twisting nothing.
I would think that the first people to discuss a god's power and
abilties/limitations would also have been theist's. So for us to be
redefining anything you'd have to show that these ancient theists,
prehaps some first and second century Christians for example, believed
that their God's omnipotence allowed him to do the logically
impossible. Can you show this? A simple quote will suffice.
Here are the fundamental tenets of Christian
belief, having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell / to the dead.
On the third day he rose again,
He ascended into heaven.
He is seated at the right hand of the Father
and He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
The issue raised (that you still have not responded to in any
satisfactory
way) is your special pleading that "Everything must have a cause, except
God, who is a special entity, the First Cause." Special pleading like
that
is logical fallacy, so your notion that there might be a creator is
summarily rejected due to the logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent
in
it.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Special_Pleading
Are you saying that I am the first person to ever inform you of this
logical
fallacy, son? Maybe I will be the 'first cause' of you transitioning to
atheism? 8^)
Um, nowhere did I say anything anywhere about causality.
Now Danni is just flat lying.
Dannii claims that the notion there might be an entity who created (is the
First Cause of) the universe is plausible.
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151283883.942234.230490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
...God is special, God is spirit
and does not exist in any physical place (you can argue against that if
you like, and I probably wouldn't have an answer, it's basically the
biggest mystery of all Christianity). God created the universe, which
included the matter, the energy, the weird 'brane' things I know very
little about, but also the space in which the matter/energy/etc exists,
and also spacetime which defines the space.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dannii" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
28 Jun 2006 02:55:37 AM |
|
|
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
I would think that the first people to discuss a god's power and
abilties/limitations would also have been theist's. So for us to be
redefining anything you'd have to show that these ancient theists,
prehaps some first and second century Christians for example, believed
that their God's omnipotence allowed him to do the logically
impossible. Can you show this? A simple quote will suffice.
Here are the fundamental tenets of Christian
belief, having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell / to the dead.
On the third day he rose again,
He ascended into heaven.
He is seated at the right hand of the Father
and He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Which part of this says that God can do the logically impossible?
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
The issue raised (that you still have not responded to in any
satisfactory
way) is your special pleading that "Everything must have a cause, except
God, who is a special entity, the First Cause." Special pleading like
that
is logical fallacy, so your notion that there might be a creator is
summarily rejected due to the logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent
in
it.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Special_Pleading
Are you saying that I am the first person to ever inform you of this
logical
fallacy, son? Maybe I will be the 'first cause' of you transitioning to
atheism? 8^)
Um, nowhere did I say anything anywhere about causality.
Now Danni is just flat lying.
Dannii claims that the notion there might be an entity who created (is the
First Cause of) the universe is plausible.
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151283883.942234.230490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
...God is special, God is spirit
and does not exist in any physical place (you can argue against that if
you like, and I probably wouldn't have an answer, it's basically the
biggest mystery of all Christianity). God created the universe, which
included the matter, the energy, the weird 'brane' things I know very
little about, but also the space in which the matter/energy/etc exists,
and also spacetime which defines the space.
True I said that, but I didn't specifically talk about causality, nor
did I say "Everything must have a cause, except God, who is a special
entity, the First Cause."
Can you explain "Don Kresh has pointed out above in this thread, in
that having the power to create the universe is logically impossible.
Existence would precede existence. You would have A and not-A at the
same time, which can't be." to me please. What's existence is preceding
the universe's existence? How is it A and not-A?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheikh Yapeter" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
28 Jun 2006 12:33:30 PM |
|
|
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151481337.493074.168950@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
I would think that the first people to discuss a god's power and
abilties/limitations would also have been theist's. So for us to be
redefining anything you'd have to show that these ancient theists,
prehaps some first and second century Christians for example, believed
that their God's omnipotence allowed him to do the logically
impossible. Can you show this? A simple quote will suffice.
Here are the fundamental tenets of Christian
belief, having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve
Apostles.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell / to the dead.
On the third day he rose again,
He ascended into heaven.
He is seated at the right hand of the Father
and He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Which part of this says that God can do the logically impossible?
"I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."
See that term 'creator' in there? It is a logically contradictory concept,
as Don Kresh has already explained. See
news:g7vj9295166altaklek5sq3pl0g32p119m@4ax.com
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
The issue raised (that you still have not responded to in any
satisfactory
way) is your special pleading that "Everything must have a cause,
except
God, who is a special entity, the First Cause." Special pleading like
that
is logical fallacy, so your notion that there might be a creator is
summarily rejected due to the logical fallacy (special pleading)
inherent
in
it.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Special_Pleading
Are you saying that I am the first person to ever inform you of this
logical
fallacy, son? Maybe I will be the 'first cause' of you transitioning
to
atheism? 8^)
Um, nowhere did I say anything anywhere about causality.
Now Danni is just flat lying.
Dannii claims that the notion there might be an entity who created (is
the
First Cause of) the universe is plausible.
"Dannii" <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151283883.942234.230490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
...God is special, God is spirit
and does not exist in any physical place (you can argue against that if
you like, and I probably wouldn't have an answer, it's basically the
biggest mystery of all Christianity). God created the universe, which
included the matter, the energy, the weird 'brane' things I know very
little about, but also the space in which the matter/energy/etc exists,
and also spacetime which defines the space.
True I said that, but I didn't specifically talk about causality
Dannii is lying again. Dannii claims that the notion there might be an
entity who created (is the First Cause of) the universe is plausible.
Can you explain "Don Kresh has pointed out above in this thread, in
that having the power to create the universe is logically impossible.
Existence would precede existence. You would have A and not-A at the
same time, which can't be." to me please. What's existence is preceding
the universe's existence?
The existence of your hypothetical God, of course.
How is it A and not-A?
Something in existence (God) creating all existence (the universe). A and
not-A at the same time. A logical contradiction inherent in your argument.
This has all been explained in this thread by Don Kresh. See:
news:g7vj9295166altaklek5sq3pl0g32p119m@4ax.com
Do you have any more lame attempted evasions, or ad hoc rescues, or are you
ready to say Uncle, truly the hypothesis that there might be a Creator
(First Cause) of the universe is rightfully summarily rejected due to the
logical contradiction inherent in it, as Bertrand Russell explained eons
ago?
<quote>
It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested
upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they
said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the
subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why
the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other
hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause. -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
</quote>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dannii" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
28 Jun 2006 09:28:53 PM |
|
|
Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
Can you explain "Don Kresh has pointed out above in this thread, in
that having the power to create the universe is logically impossible.
Existence would precede existence. You would have A and not-A at the
same time, w | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
